Flouting of political party’s own guidance questionable
I NEED to correct the impression given by your article in the Guernsey Press of 24 August headed ‘Revised spend guidance delays progress for political parties’, that there is merely ‘confusion’ over the law, as you are not fully aware of the background. This is not an issue of ‘confusion’ but arises out of a complaint which I made on 21 August 2020 to the registrar-general of the upcoming election, against the conduct of the Guernsey Partnership of Independents and that party’s named candidates in publishing their full page advertisement in the Guernsey Press, on 20 August, naming, identifying and promoting individual candidates in the upcoming election.
In summary, the Election Expenditure Ordinance 2020 (Article 1 7) states clearly that a ‘candidate for election may not use promotional materials acquired for money or money’s worth to canvass support for their upcoming candidature prior to the "regulated period". 'This commences only on 1 September, as the day when nomination papers may be submitted.
In dealing with the possible transfer of expense allowances, the ordinance also clearly envisages that a political party is bound by the same restriction; i.e. it may not publicly promote its candidates by paid-for promotional materials such as advertisements before 1 September. Moreover, the official Guidance Notes to Candidates says this, expressly: see (d) (iv) and (vii) on pages 15 and 16.
To contravene these provisions, which were designed to prevent entities with deep pockets or financial backing from stealing a march on individual or less wealthy candidates, is an electoral offence and may even be a criminal offence.
Yet the Guernsey Partnership of Independents, led by a trio of senior incumbent deputies who helped draft these very restrictions, stole an advantage over just such potential newcomers, or less well-connected candidates, by placing the full page advertisement in your paper on 20 August.
It is no answer to the allegation of a breach of electoral law that a ‘candidate’ is not a ‘candidate’ before submitting their nomination papers, for at least three reasons.
First, to the ordinary man in the street, anyone who has declared their intention to stand for the office of deputy is obviously seen as a ‘candidate’. Indeed, the very offending advertisement referred to the individuals as ‘candidates’. Second, that the law plainly intended this to be the case, thereby restricting paid-for publicity for candidates by both amount and time period in the run up to the election, is obvious from its purpose and general intention.
Third, s 1(7) of the ordinance expressly refers to a ‘candidate’ spending money before the commencement of the regulated period, thus demonstrating beyond dispute that a person is a ‘candidate’ in the eyes of this law before the start of the ‘regulated period’.
To my astonishment, on submitting my complaint to the registrar-general, on 21 August, I was told
that I could not receive an immediate answer, because the registrar-general is on holiday during this week. I have not, as of now, received any substantive reply to my complaint, but I suddenly read, in your paper, that ‘revised expenditure guidance’ is to be issued on Wednesday.
It seems that the officials in the elections office have, therefore, taken some notice of my complaint.
However, even if a change of guidance, part way through this highly sensitive period, could properly be made, it cannot undo the electoral offence which has, on the face of it, been committed by both the Guernsey Partnership of Independents and its publicised individual candidates (in particular the trio actually named in the advertisement itself) under the obvious intention of the law and the ordinance.
And on any basis, this flouting of their own guidance must put into question the competence of this political party, and its candidates, and whether they could be deserving of votes from the Guernsey electorate.
HARVEY MARSHALL,
St Saviour’s.
